[News] RECALL THREAD-- IMPORTANT PHILIPS DREAMSTATION & SYSTEM ONE USERS

[WakeUpTime]

<< above >>

From your earlier e-mail reference guide and my briefly analyzing the e-mail's meta data, considering that Philips seems to have contracted out both the Recall Registration website to Sedgwick and the contact data marketing to Act-On Software, it seems to be legitimately organized by Philips - assuming of course that Philips has indeed authorized Sedgwick to release data for Act-On to act on.

The sender and return-reply seems to correspond with the website associated with the Recall Registration site (Sedgwick).  The e-mail seems to be ‘processed’ by an internet contact marketing company (Act-On) which may be sending and verifying all replies to be sure that they correspond to the Philips Recall Registration database and/or those specific Registrants who have been flagged for additional screening for not precisely matching the details in the Philips original warranty registration database.  

Return-Path: delivery@brandsolutions.sedgwick.com
Received: from mx##.aosau.net (along with an IP address that corresponds to Act-On Software)

From: Philips <globalintake-noreply@sedgwick.com>
Reply-To: Philips <globalintake-noreply@sedgwick.com>

Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of brandsolutions.sedgwick.com designates X.X.X.X as permitted sender)
[X.X.X.X is an IP address belonging to Act-On Software]

Message ID: XXXXXXXXXX@mail-out.via.act-on.net

Philips Recall device owner communications may possibly be managed by:

Act-On Software
Act-On Software is in the business of internet contact marketing and management.

The Philips Recall Registration site and database is managed by:

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
Our approach to delivering quality service in areas such as workers’ compensation, liability, property, disability and absence management goes far beyond just managing claims —we aim to simplify the process and reduce complexity, making it easy and effective for everyone involved. 

Philips seems to have contracted out most activities related to the Recall.  When we contact Philips regarding the Recall, we are likely contacting their designated insurance claims management company (Sedgwick), though instead of money being paid out for our 'claim', it's replacement equipment.  Sedgwick is likely restricted to acting on specific serial numbers that Philips has authorized them to process replacement orders.  It's getting significantly more complex as Philips moves well beyond processing replacements for recent Dreamstation purchases under warranty.  Those not getting timely replacements may have to press Sedgwick to press Philips for better results.  Sedgwick is only the insurance claim intermediary.  

Philips must be greatly relieved that they're not getting calls directly to their local country offices.  With my company, I hated when that happenned, but I always went out of my way to resolve each situation, eventually.  Otherwise, there's a disruption in other business activities.  I wonder what would happen if hundreds, or thousands, of dissatisfied owners contacted their Philips head offices directly and pressed repeatedly for an immediate solution after waiting more than one year.

[SuperSleeper]

It's already been established that sedgwick.com is acting on behalf of Philips for the recall effort. 

But playing the devil's advocate here.... Is there anything at all on the Philips website that indicates they're also employing Act-On Software to handle recall information-gathering or are you simply assuming that's the case because of the email you received?

I'd still  like to see the full source code for these emails, not just a redacted snippet.  You can either email it to me at apneaboard@gmail.com or send it to me via Private Message on the forum.

[btreger]

But playing the devil's advocate here.... Is there anything at all on the Philips website that indicates they're also employing Act-On Software to handle recall information-gathering or are you simply assuming that's the case because of the email you received?

I recalled the number on the e-mail. They had created a ticket on me so they knew I called yesterday. That surprised me. They would not provide the name of their company, because that was their policy? They did tell me that the serial numbers they are working on now begin with a J. 
 
Once they get the requested data, it then is passed on to another one of their departments that would contact your doctor. Once they have all the information, they then pass it on to Philips, or that could be just a different contractor, who knows!!!

If this info is accurate then the entire recall process seems to be handled by contractors, with Philips somewhere in the background.

Of course, this is just my opinion. It would be nice to have a flow chart to see how this is really set up.

[btreger]

RE <above>

I think we have to understand that what we have been posting about are just a few 1 off's. An unknown number of units could fall into this basket.

These are machines that for whatever reason the serial numbers could not be traced back to the DME who originally set them up. Without knowing how to configure a replacement, they had to resort to the method we have been discussing for the past 2 days.

Everyone that has reported receiving a replacement, either a new or refurbished one has stated that they were preconfigured with their existing settings. No one has said that their replacement was set with factory settings. 

So either Philips or their contractors, or a combination of both have been able to connect the registered serial numbers to the correct settings, without involving anyone's doctor.

[StratCat48]

Yup, Philips had coordinated my replacement DS2 with my brick and mortar DME and that is pretty much what my DME had told me on a phone call. Likely why I got the replacement about 4 months after registering the recalled DS1.

I think the thing that irks me a bit is originally owning the DS1 which had a plethora of configuration options and then receiving the DS2 which is a basic APAP. The DS2 does work as it should and I presently have no complaints in the therapy it delivers, however conceivably I could have a change in my therapy needs which might require features the DS1 could have provided, but the DS2 can't. (I believe I am correct in saying the DS1 can do Bi-Level therapy also?)

Kinda like having a recalled Toyota 4Runner which is fully decked out with options and receiving a base model Corolla in return.

[Gideon]

The DS1 does not do BiLevel therapy. Maybe a very little via flex which is a variable amount algorithmically controlled thus not providing constant levels of PS.

[StratCat48]

"The DS1 does not do BiLevel therapy."


Wasn't sure if it could or not. A couple online sellers webpages seemed to hint the DS1 was capable of either APAP or Bi-Level in one machine, but you are correct after I dug around a bit that the Bi-Level is a different DreamStation model.

At any rate having had the DS1 and now the DS2 and exploring the clinician menus, the DS1 did seem to have many more settings than what is available on the DS2 to the end user. Some settings that were on the DS1 I believe are now only accessible via Care Orchestrator.

[Homerec130]

As to not giving their name, when I was working for a major tax/business software company, the companies that did work for us could only identify themselves using our name when asked who they worked for. It is a lot easier for the customer that way. We had sites in India (mostly sales), the Philippines (install) and New York for everything else including tax questions. Most of our remote sites were quite good as they had to comply with our standards. I was in QA at the time and got to listen/read many customer contacts.

So, just because they don't mention their local name, it is not really a big deal.

[WakeUpTime]

Once they get the requested data, it then is passed on to another one of their departments that would contact your doctor. Once they have all the information, they then pass it on to Philips...

That seems to be the process for Recalled device owners where Philips doesn't have recent patient settings data for replacement devices.  But why doesn't the Philips' contracted agency simply ask the patient for their xPAP prescription?  Many xPAP patients frequently e-mail/fax their xPAP prescription copy to DMEs for new systems and masks.  I've done that probably five times to setup with a new DME supplier.  We're able to do that for a new xPAP system, but Philips won't allow millions to do that to have a piece of faulty carcinogenic foam replaced on my currently owned Philips systems.  That's quite a strategy by Philips that will likely go unchallenged.

Can you imagine if every new patient order forced the DME to instead be required to make direct contact with a patient's doctor?  Under current standards, direct communications with a patient's doctor is usually only required when:

• confusion over the patient prescription details
  
• prescription extensions (refills) and modifications
  
• medical prescriptions conflicting with other patient medications
  
• highly controlled substances are involved (e.g. Class 1 Medications)
  

The appearance of course is that this new phase of the Recall will be a quick and easy process.  However, the reality is that this will add a significant delay to Recalled device owners receiving fixes/replacments.  There may also be additional medical fees and inaccurate prescriptions.  For example, the doctor's office may say that the prescription is now out-of-date and requires a new doctor visit.  Or, in my case, they may send the most recent prescription which, the doctor admits, was made from a flawed sleep study.

Additionally, millions of patients will now be required to submit their sensitive data (name, address, phone, doctor, date of birth, etc.) to 3rd party companies that will store and forward those details to other companies.  That opens the door for a future data breach and data interception.  Also, not all e-mail data has high (or any) encryption.

It's easy for those who didn't have to go through this additional process to say that it's nothing to be concerned about.  And of course, all companies state that "your privacy is important" to them - even Equifax with its higher standards, and we saw what happened there.  I don't have faith that data forwarded to Add-On Software by my e-mail provider, extracted and stored at Add-On Software, then forwarded to Segwick and then stored, then forwarded to Philips to be stored, will forever be secured.

Without FDA (or other) oversight and accountability, Philips arguably will be able to legally state that updated patient data had not be received in the most recent data-dump from Segwick, or that Segwick had not received recent data from Act-On Software, or that Act-On had not yet received the data from the patient's doctor, or that the patient's doctor had not received a response from the patient for a personal data release or updated medical appointment.  Philips will therefore simply classify this group as 'unresponsive'.  No one, including the media, will investigate the accuracy or integrity of any of these instances.

All of this additional time, financial risk and possibly medical cost, in order to replace a piece of carcinogenic faulty foam.  This next more complex phase may also have been made more intentionally difficult and worrisome for Recall device owners.  Philips knows that some patients my be unwilling, unable (or incapable) to comply with Philips' additional requests and will therefore forfeit their ability to receive a fix/replacement to their Recalled device.  Philips may have indeed found another way to (legally) further significantly reduce the number of fixes/replacements.

[Moriarty]

...and yet all rhat Philips asked me for was photos of the the settings screens. Once I supplied those the replacement machines arrives soon after.
Perhaps things are just a bit more laid back here in Oz.